Opinion
January 21, 1999.
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County [Emily Goodman, J.].
Substantial evidence, including proof of petitioners' numerous violations of Insurance Law provisions and of their attempts to hamper respondent's investigation, and including the testimony of Joan B. Handy demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the relevant laws and regulations governing record-keeping requirements and other obligation's of excess line brokers, supports the Superintendent's determination of petitioners' incompetency and/or untrustworthiness pursuant to Insurance Law § 2110 (a) (4) ( see, Pasternack v. Muhl, 248 A.D.2d 246; Kalastein Assocs. v. New York State Ins. Dept., 243 A.D.2d 408). Respondent's reliance on a 1989 stipulation in further support of this determination was appropriate.
Since petitioners failed to maintain records as they were required to by the Insurance Law and failed to provide the required records during the audit at issue ( see, Insurance Law § 2118 [c] [1], [2]), the Superintendent was permitted independently to calculate the amount of taxes due ( see, Matter of Alphonse Hotel Corp. v. Sweeney, 251 A.D.2d 169; Matter of Cook v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 222 A.D.2d 962, 963; Matter of Bitable on Broadway v. Wetzler, 199 A.D.2d 633). Petitioners failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent's audit method or tax assessment was erroneous (see, Matter of Cook v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, supra; Matter of Bitable on Broadway v. Wetzler, supra).
The violation based on respondents' issuance of "claims-made" liquor liability policies during the 1987-1993 period was supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of John Paterno, Inc. v. Curiale, 88 N.Y.2d 328, 332, n).
We have considered petitioners' related contentions and find them unavailing.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.